Are WE ready to move forward with a draft motion in favour of embedded 3rd party links on WE?

Jump to: navigation, search

Not yet.

All the non-trivial pedagogical reasons for permitting "embedded 3rd party links" apply to embedding locally hosted multi-media resources. These may include appropriately licensed resources copied from other sites and converted into free file formats. So, rather streamline this process via technical innovations and help for wikieducators.

Most of the processes mentioned for embedding 3rd party links apply to embedding locally hosted resources.

There is also an overlap in technical requirements.

Requiring Wikieducators to search/filter by license, download, reference and (optionally) adapt the WE-hosted resource, has pedagogical merit (the first step of localisation), and avoids or reduces many of the risks associated with "embedded 3rd party links".

The local resource is:

  • appropriately licensed (automatically where possible and via user supplied meta-data on download/upload)
  • in a free file format, ready for viewing and editing with free software
    • adverts may be removed
    • ready for further (multiple) localisation(s)
    • my browser (Firefox) will not say "Additional plugins are required to view this page" - and then lead me to proprietary software to process patent-encumbered codecs
  • not affected by changes to or removal of the original media file on the third party site
    • the local copy is easily monitored if it is changed (e.g. new version uploaded) via (watch lists or by people monitoring media files)
      • e.g. substituted with material at a different educational level or otherwise undesirable
        • the risk of undesirable content finding its way onto WE pages (potentially with legal implications) is reduced
  • free of privacy risks associated with some 3rd party sites (e.g. the user may need to be logged in to the 3rd party site to view a resource)
  • ... Please add ...

If we get the guidelines and processes for embedding 3rd party links "right", they will be equivalent to downloading and converting to free file formats on WE (and/or Wikimedia Commons). In which case, why not just start with that goal? - Kim Tucker 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

CC: Guidelines page

KTucker (talk)01:50, 2 May 2010

Kim - are your ideas here and the lazy consensus motion mutually exclusive? Or are they two different but related issues that we are just learning enough about to separate?

Vtaylor (talk)17:13, 3 May 2010

Looking back, at the time it seemed to me that the lazy consensus vote mixed at least two issues. (1) All would agree that WE should enable media rich learning experiences. But, if we just say that we should (2) enable "embedded 3rd party links" (e.g. to resources on YouTube, ...), that raises a host of issues and risks as we have seen in the discussions (and above). It was not clear to me whether the lazy-consensus vote represented a full understanding of these issues.

If we had asked for a lazy consensus vote on "should WE only serve media in free/open file formats", would we have the same consensus? Which way would the consensus be?

On the other hand, if the "3rd parties" are carefully chosen, and WE are effectively in control of the media files being served (in free file formats) and of the meta-data, then the risks outlined above are reduced, and we may remain true to our values. The straw dog 2 motion (now incorporated into straw dog 3) addresses the issues in a way which (I think) is aligned with the lazy-consensus.

KTucker (talk)22:01, 7 May 2010